Remand Is Not a License for Cruelty: Is Lusignan Rehabilitative or Retributive?

592GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

Remand Is Not a License for Cruelty: Is Lusignan Rehabilitative or Retributive?

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar November 2026

Someone on remand is still presumed innocent, they typically hold different rights than convicted inmates. Depending on the jurisdiction, remand detainees may: Be housed in separate wings or entirely different facilities from convicted prisoners to prevent mixing. Be allowed to wear their own clothes rather than a prison uniform. Have more lenient visitation rights or higher phone call privileges.

A country reveals its commitment to justice not only through its courts, but through the treatment of those held behind its prison walls. The allegations concerning Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed’s detention demand an urgent, transparent response—not partisan dismissal, bureaucratic silence or the suggestion that an accused person has somehow forfeited his humanity.

Mohamed and Police Constable Ryan Greene were remanded until November 24 after appearing at the Sparendaam Magistrates’ Court on a charge under the Cybercrime Act relating to the alleged unauthorized access to and disclosure of electronic data connected to national security. That is a criminal accusation awaiting adjudication, not a conviction.

The account circulated by Mohamed’s supporters describes oppressive heat, continuous lighting, isolation, painful restraints, restricted exercise and concerns about access to religiously appropriate food. These particular allegations require independent verification. But their seriousness makes prompt investigation essential. Neither the government nor the prison authorities should expect the public to accept an assurance that all is well without a credible explanation of the conditions in which he is being held.

At the center of this controversy is a principle that should unite people across political divisions: dignity does not depend on innocence, popularity, wealth or party affiliation.

The state must protect, not humiliate

The United Nations’ Nelson Mandela Rules expressly state that un-convicted prisoners are presumed innocent and must be treated accordingly. They also establish minimum standards for ventilation, sanitation, bedding, healthcare, exercise and other basic conditions of detention. These are international minimum standards—not a special entitlement reserved for political leaders.

If the reported conditions are substantiated, they would raise grave concerns under those standards. The rules prohibit placement in a constantly lit cell as a disciplinary practice. They define solitary confinement as confinement for at least 22 hours a day without meaningful human contact, and permit its use only exceptionally, as a last resort, for the shortest possible time and subject to independent review.

Keeping someone apart from other prisoners may be presented as a security precaution. But authorities must explain the necessity of the restrictions and ensure that protective measures do not become a means of inflicting suffering cannot be an answer that closes every question.

Nor should a Muslim prisoner have to choose between eating and observing his faith. The Mandela Rules require respect for prisoners’ religious beliefs. They also provide that, within limits compatible with institutional order, untried prisoners may obtain food at their own expense through the administration, family or friends.

That does not create an unrestricted right to receive any outside meal, but it makes a transparent, safe and religiously appropriate arrangement an entirely reasonable demand.

The appropriate response is immediate: independent medical assessment, confidential access to counsel, scrutiny of the reported injuries, and a documented review of his accommodation, lighting, ventilation, exercise, restraints and dietary arrangements. Any unjustified brutality must stop, and any substantiated misconduct must carry consequences.

Political suspicion is not proof—but accountability is essential

Some supporters believe Mohamed’s reported treatment is retaliation for his declaration that Bharrat Jagdeo would never break him. The timing may fuel that suspicion; it does not establish motive. An editorial committed to justice should insist on that distinction.

Yet the government cannot answer concerns about political persecution merely by pointing to the existence of criminal charges. Charges must be tested in court. Allegations of mistreatment must be investigated on their own merits. Neither question cancels the other.

The PPP/C administration should support independent scrutiny rather than leave these claims to circulate unanswered. If the account is inaccurate, evidence should correct it. If it is accurate, the authorities must remedy the conditions immediately. Political hostility cannot justify cruelty, and prison security cannot excuse humiliation.

This concern must extend beyond one prominent detainee. The same standards belong to the prisoner whose family cannot afford a lawyer, whose name never appears in a headline and whose suffering attracts no public campaign.

Could a lawful transfer to the United States offer another course?

There is also a difficult question for Mohamed and his legal advisers: whether pursuing a lawful, expedited resolution of his U.S. case could offer a more appropriate course than continuing the present struggle over his detention in Guyana.

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced charges against Mohamed involving alleged money laundering and wire fraud. Those allegations remain unproven; the department itself expressly recognizes the defendants’ presumption of innocence.

Given his expressed fears, his Guyanese and U.S. lawyers should urgently assess whether a voluntary surrender or an agreed extradition arrangement is legally available, what rights he would waive, and what custody, medical and legal-access arrangements could realistically be sought.

That is a proposal for careful legal consideration—not advice to abandon his defense, plead guilty or simply present himself at the U.S. Embassy. No responsible advocate can promise that transfer would secure bail, eliminate danger or guarantee better conditions. The decision must rest on informed legal advice, verified options and Mohamed’s own consent.

If a lawful arrangement could materially reduce a credible threat to his health or safety while preserving his ability to contest the allegations, it deserves serious consideration. Seeking a safer forum in which to defend oneself is not the same as admitting guilt.

A demand for humanity, not immunity

No one needs to support Azruddin Mohamed’s politics to demand that he be treated humanely. No one needs to accept his innocence to insist that the state prove its case through lawful proceedings rather than punish him through the conditions of his confinement.

The public should demand independent scrutiny, immediate correction of any abusive conditions and accountability wherever wrongdoing is established. Those demands can—and should—be advanced peacefully.

The government’s responsibility is not to break an opponent. It is to uphold the law, protect everyone in its custody and demonstrate that political conflict does not extinguish human rights.